Josey, what is your issue with my friend?
I had this long paragraph typed itemizing it all again from the beginning. I deleted it because I don't want to patronize you. I just don't understand your attitude.
Edit. Ooh! Ooh! Jim's here! And pulling no punches I see. Gotta beat feet off to the PM page. We now return you to your regularly scheduled analysis.
Update of significance: This abusive circus is being brought to us by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Unfortunately, in my direct experience, sheriffs are notoriously condescending, patronizing, obnoxious, self-inflated know-it-alls who simply assume that what they think is the way the world is going to run. This does by no means mean ALL of them, but enough to make a noticable difference. Arrogavce from THESE guys should come as no surprise. I hope this doesn't make this more difficult than iy already is.
The Cliff's Notes Instant Sum-Up:
1) Jefferson's ex-buddy brings by a Thief with an honest face, who, unknown to the both of them, heists the pistol.
2) Ex-buddy and Thief depart Jefferson's house and go to Redwood City, whereupon Thief puts on a Grand Show and is promptly arrested for being a complete idiot.
3) Sheriff #1 traces Jefferson's gun through the Registration database, and calls Jefferson and ascertains that the gun is stolen. Jefferson is under no suspicion of aiding/abetting Thief's stupidity.
4) Thief goes to court and gets a ticket to The Barry Place.
Jefferson is not involved with the trial in any way.
5) Jefferson calls the Sheriff's Office a couple of times after a month or two to determine the fate of his gun. He is told they can't release it yet as they're not done testing it. This information was delivered by different folks at the Records desk each time.
6) (Here's where the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office commits a crime of monstrous proportion, which precipitated this whole fiasco.) Last thursday Jefferson calls and winds up talking to Sheriff #2, and getting the good news that the pistol is now available for release, provided Jefferson has no felonies or misdemeanors on his record. He gives his name and ID#, and Sheriff #2 pulls his file out of the database at the Records desk to check if he has been convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors. Sheriff #2 then informs Jefferson that he cannot release the pistol to him because he has a conviction for misdemeanor charge of 'exhibition of speed'.
No mention of the Thief's case or the circumstances surrounding the Sheriff's posesssion of the gun at this, or any other time during this conversation. When asked why the Office will not release the gun despite a lack of any convictions for a felony, a misdemeanor crime of violence involving a sentence of one year or longer, or domestic violence, and not being named in a restraining order, Sheriff #2 said words to the effect of "It's our policy." Sheriff #2 then affirmed that it was in fact the misdemeanor conviction for 'exhibition of speed' that was the reason he would not authorize the pistol's release to Jefferson, the registered owner. "Come back when your probation's up. We'll see what the law says then." Now the guy thinks he can legislate?
No crime. No charge. No trial before a jury of peers. No conviction. No sentence. No penal code allowing LE to confiscate guns on the basis of a non-violent misdemeanor conviction or probation. Just "It's our policy."
Policy that's flying right in the face of California Penal Code, Section 12028.5(d), and oh yeah, that dratted inconvenient Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution, which we KNOW Sheriff's get PLENTY of legal training in how to handle so they don't get their cases tossed out, never mind the violation of guaranteed protections against aggressive arms of the government.
I am
not buying it.
Jefferson is undeniably NOT prohibited from having guns. He has committed NO crime. He has had no trial, not even the
slightest pretense of due process. Participation in a crime in the role of the victim does NOT make one an accessory to said crime, so why is he being treated like a convicted criminal?
Law Enforcement does not MAKE the laws, they just enforce them. If LE as an institution believes it okay to make the law up as they go, then it needs to be brutally slapped down as an institution. Institutional arrogance does not allow them abrogate citizen's rights whenever they please. This is a condition we usually refer to a "lawlessness," and I expect a LE institution to avoid this kind of action.
Josey, this isn't a test case. There is no "safe storage" law. There is no "Don't allow a thief to steal your pistol" law. There is no exception to anti-theft law for inviting a convicted felon into your home. One might have a reasonable expectation that a houseguest isn't going to break the law and rob you, however! Regardless, I don't see the relevance of any of these things to the situation at hand as Jefferson is not on trial here. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office made it perfectly clear that it is the misdemeanor conviction on Jefferson's record that is the
problem,
not the circumstances surrounding the original theft!
What I fail to understand is why you keep insisting the conditions around the original theft are relevant, when clearly they are not. What matters is San Mateo county's illegal seizure of Jefferson's gun on an unlawful pretext, which is particularly egregious as Jefferson is the victim of the original crime!
What I REALLY fail to understand is why you demand to assign culpability and blame to Jefferson for getting robbed! You assert that he's irresponsible for failing to instantly recognize the Thief for what he was. The man is not a mind-reader, nor is he a habitual criminal likely to recognize one of his own. Is it being a goob if you don't expect someone you've met only once before under non-suspicious, even friendly circumstances to immediately start ransacking your home when your back is turned? Jefferson didn't train the guy to have no scruples. He didn't tell the Thief there was a gun in his room. He didn't make the Thief willfully rip-off the friend of the friend who brought him to the house. How does being polite, making the Thief EARN his disrespect, and expecting the Thief to not steal from him when he had no prior knowledge of Thief's larcenistic tendencies make him in ANY way responsible for the Thief committ6ing ANY of the several crimes he subsequently perpetrates?
Jefferson had NO CONTROL over what choices the Thief decided on of his own free will. Yet you would blame Jefferson for this, and use that as a reason to say that his case is a bad one to use to challenge the San Mateo sheriff's BLATANT abuse of his civil rights, which the sheriff centered on a mark on his record that is totally unrelated. What does he need to do to satisfy you? WHY does his unwillingness to accept the responsibility for another's criminal acts frustrate you so much WHEN IT DIDN'T CONCERN THE SHERIFF AT ALL? How can this culpability you insist on have any bearing on the case when it is NOT what the sheriff took issue with when he decided to violate Jefferson's Fourth Ammendment protections by refusing to return his gun?
In the context of Jim March's informed confidence of how the Cal-DOJ is going to handle this, I find your attitude just a bit disheartening. Jefferson has done nothing in this situation to earn it. He's not particularly irresponsible, nor does he have bad judgement. He's just another gun-owner like the rest of us HighRiders who had the unmitigated bad luck to run afoul of both an unscrupulos thieving idiot and a snobby elitist Sheriff's department with delusions of grandeur.
Blaming the victim and shifting responsibility to shield criminals is a technique I'm a lot more used to seeing in the back-pedaling and redefining style of discussion used by Liberal Democrats. We are Riders of The High Road, and such behavior does not become us.